Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tax Assessment Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County proposes formal standards for contracted local assessors

6438332 · October 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The county assessor presented a proposed policy to set qualifications, reporting cadence and data‑integrity standards for local assessors who perform assessments in Beltrami County townships and one city that currently hire independent assessors.

Beltrami County's contracted local assessor policy was presented Tuesday to establish responsibilities, procedure and minimum technical standards for any contracted local assessor working within the county's taxing jurisdictions.

Caleb (county assessor) told commissioners the draft policy draws on Minnesota statute, Department of Revenue guidance and standards from the Minnesota State Board of Assessors and the Minnesota Association of Assessing Officers. "Most of the policy is no different than the standards and expectations we have within our own office," he said, adding the policy requires equipment and reporting expectations to create a level playing field for contractors.

Why it matters: The county currently has one local assessor and 13 townships plus one city that contract their assessments. The proposed policy formalizes licensing, equipment and December 1/February 1 reporting expectations spelled out in state law and clarifies the county's expectations for quality and progress reporting.

Next steps: The assessor said the policy was recommended by the county property‑tax compliance officer and that updates to the county appraiser manual are likely to follow. Commissioners had no substantive objections at the time of presentation; the policy will return for formal action in a future session.

No vote was taken at Tuesday's meeting.